Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer
Abstract Background This study clarified the mechanical performance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer generated with a commercial knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) and whether KBP system could be applied clinically without any major problems with mechanical...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2018-08-01
|
| Series: | Radiation Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-018-1114-y |
| _version_ | 1819054557986029568 |
|---|---|
| author | Mikoto Tamura Hajime Monzen Kenji Matsumoto Kazuki Kubo Masakazu Otsuka Masahiro Inada Hiroshi Doi Kazuki Ishikawa Kiyoshi Nakamatsu Iori Sumida Hirokazu Mizuno Do-Kun Yoon Yasumasa Nishimura |
| author_facet | Mikoto Tamura Hajime Monzen Kenji Matsumoto Kazuki Kubo Masakazu Otsuka Masahiro Inada Hiroshi Doi Kazuki Ishikawa Kiyoshi Nakamatsu Iori Sumida Hirokazu Mizuno Do-Kun Yoon Yasumasa Nishimura |
| author_sort | Mikoto Tamura |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background This study clarified the mechanical performance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer generated with a commercial knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) and whether KBP system could be applied clinically without any major problems with mechanical performance. Methods Thirty consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent VMAT using extant clinical plans were evaluated. The mechanical performance and dosimetric accuracy of the single optimized KBPs, which were trained with other 51 clinical plans, were compared with the clinical plans. The mechanical performance metrics were mean field area (MFA), mean asymmetry distance (MAD), cross-axis score (CAS), closed leaf score (CLS), small aperture score (SAS), leaf travel (LT), modulation complexity score (MCSv), and monitor unit (MU). The γ passing rates were evaluated with ArcCheck and EBT3 film. Results The mean mechanical performance metrics (clinical plan vs. KBP) were as follows: 18.28 cm2 vs. 17.25 cm2 (MFA), 21.08 mm vs. 20.47 mm (MAD), 0.54 vs. 0.55 (CAS), 0.040 vs. 0.051 (CLS), 0.20 vs. 0.23 (SAS5mm), 458.5 mm vs. 418.8 mm (LT), 0.27 vs. 0.27 (MCSv), and 618.2 vs. 622.1 (MU), respectively. Significant differences were observed for CLS and LT. The average γ passing rates (clinical plan vs. KBP) were as follows: 99.0% vs. 99.1% (3%/3 mm) and 92.4% vs. 92.5% (2%/2 mm) with ArcCHeck, and 99.5% vs. 99.4% (3%/3 mm) and 95.2% vs. 95.4% (2%/2 mm) with EBT3 film, respectively. Conclusions The KBP used lower multileaf collimator (MLC) travel and more closed or small MLC apertures than the clinical plan. The KBP system of VMAT for the prostate cancer was acceptable for clinical use without any major problems. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T12:53:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-db4980ed66f04598b0529ebe8748e78a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-717X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T12:53:32Z |
| publishDate | 2018-08-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Radiation Oncology |
| spelling | doaj.art-db4980ed66f04598b0529ebe8748e78a2022-12-21T19:03:25ZengBMCRadiation Oncology1748-717X2018-08-011311710.1186/s13014-018-1114-yMechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancerMikoto Tamura0Hajime Monzen1Kenji Matsumoto2Kazuki Kubo3Masakazu Otsuka4Masahiro Inada5Hiroshi Doi6Kazuki Ishikawa7Kiyoshi Nakamatsu8Iori Sumida9Hirokazu Mizuno10Do-Kun Yoon11Yasumasa Nishimura12Department of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka UniversityDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka UniversityDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Research Institute of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, Catholic University of KoreaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai UniversityAbstract Background This study clarified the mechanical performance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer generated with a commercial knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) and whether KBP system could be applied clinically without any major problems with mechanical performance. Methods Thirty consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent VMAT using extant clinical plans were evaluated. The mechanical performance and dosimetric accuracy of the single optimized KBPs, which were trained with other 51 clinical plans, were compared with the clinical plans. The mechanical performance metrics were mean field area (MFA), mean asymmetry distance (MAD), cross-axis score (CAS), closed leaf score (CLS), small aperture score (SAS), leaf travel (LT), modulation complexity score (MCSv), and monitor unit (MU). The γ passing rates were evaluated with ArcCheck and EBT3 film. Results The mean mechanical performance metrics (clinical plan vs. KBP) were as follows: 18.28 cm2 vs. 17.25 cm2 (MFA), 21.08 mm vs. 20.47 mm (MAD), 0.54 vs. 0.55 (CAS), 0.040 vs. 0.051 (CLS), 0.20 vs. 0.23 (SAS5mm), 458.5 mm vs. 418.8 mm (LT), 0.27 vs. 0.27 (MCSv), and 618.2 vs. 622.1 (MU), respectively. Significant differences were observed for CLS and LT. The average γ passing rates (clinical plan vs. KBP) were as follows: 99.0% vs. 99.1% (3%/3 mm) and 92.4% vs. 92.5% (2%/2 mm) with ArcCHeck, and 99.5% vs. 99.4% (3%/3 mm) and 95.2% vs. 95.4% (2%/2 mm) with EBT3 film, respectively. Conclusions The KBP used lower multileaf collimator (MLC) travel and more closed or small MLC apertures than the clinical plan. The KBP system of VMAT for the prostate cancer was acceptable for clinical use without any major problems.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-018-1114-yKnowledge-based treatment planningProstate cancerMechanical performanceDosimetric accuracy |
| spellingShingle | Mikoto Tamura Hajime Monzen Kenji Matsumoto Kazuki Kubo Masakazu Otsuka Masahiro Inada Hiroshi Doi Kazuki Ishikawa Kiyoshi Nakamatsu Iori Sumida Hirokazu Mizuno Do-Kun Yoon Yasumasa Nishimura Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer Radiation Oncology Knowledge-based treatment planning Prostate cancer Mechanical performance Dosimetric accuracy |
| title | Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer |
| title_full | Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer |
| title_fullStr | Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer |
| title_full_unstemmed | Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer |
| title_short | Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer |
| title_sort | mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge based vmat planning for prostate cancer |
| topic | Knowledge-based treatment planning Prostate cancer Mechanical performance Dosimetric accuracy |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-018-1114-y |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mikototamura mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT hajimemonzen mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT kenjimatsumoto mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT kazukikubo mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT masakazuotsuka mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT masahiroinada mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT hiroshidoi mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT kazukiishikawa mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT kiyoshinakamatsu mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT iorisumida mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT hirokazumizuno mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT dokunyoon mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT yasumasanishimura mechanicalperformanceofacommercialknowledgebasedvmatplanningforprostatecancer |